New policy for J&K misses long-held political benchmark

Arun Joshi

Tribune News Service

Jammu, May 20

The domicile policy rules for J&K have ignored certain constitutional claims by excluding Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir as also Gilgit-Baltistan in it. This omission may embarrass India internationally.

This has also deviated from the November 2, 2019, notification of the maps of the two UTs of J&K and Ladakh, in which GB and PoJK were shown as part of these UTs and India.

The Indian Parliament’s resolutions passed in 1994 had declared that all the illegally occupied territories of Jammu and Kashmir are integral part of India and in the recent years Pakistan has been asked to vacate these areas. India could have used the extension of this policy to these areas to weaken Pakistan’s claim of the “disputed territories” and sent a clear message to 53 lakh people living in 86,268 sq km that India is willing to adopt them.

A separate clause mentioning about them till Pakistan vacates these could have worked wonders and underscored the political benchmark of Delhi with regard to these areas. A chance to showcase moral foreign policy has been allowed to slip.

A historical wrong that was presumed to have been corrected on August 5 last year, was not extended to PoJK and Gilgit-Baltistan, especially when the China-Pak nexus is thickening, threatening strategic assets of India in the region.

When the refugees from PoJK have been included in this category, the exclusion of the place and the people in Mirpur and Muzzaffarabad sits at odds with each other. The refugees’ inclusion is welcome. And it was also best opportunity to deflate Pakistan’s charge of ‘Islamophobia’ against India.

Provincial president of the NC Devender Singh Rana said, “If we are broadcasting the weather forecast of GB and PoJK, why not include them in this policy, the merits and demerits of which I don’t want to discuss at the moment as the matter is pending in the Supreme Court.” He, however reminded that if “J&K is having seats reserved for them in the Assembly, there is no reason for their exclusion.”